Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.rules (
More info?)
Hylander <john.gagon@gmail.com> wrote:
>What I meant there though was that...(ignoring the rules for a second)
>I could play
>the spell and pay that alternate cost of removing a card from my hand
>every time.
>IOW, imprinting is one thing where it qualifies as a X=0 W W = 2 cc
>card to imprint so it's imprintable and then it says, "Instead of"
>using the mana cost I can play a copy of the spell.
What? No, the "imprint" part is just removing the card from the game in
the -first- place, and tying it to the Imprint artifact as long as the
card's in the RFG zone.
The "you can copy that instant card, then play the copy you just made without
paying its mana cost" only interacts with "Imprint" because it's looking for
a card imprinted on the artifact. The card being imprinted doesn't change
how the mana cost gets paid; the text of the ability that says "then play
it without paying its mana cost" is what does that. Aluren lets players play
actual cards without paying their mana costs, and doesn't have anything
to do with Imprint; the Legates allow themselves to be played without paying
their mana costs under certain conditions; etc.
The fact that Isochron Scepter is using the Imprint to identify _which_
card you can play-for-cheaper this way doesn't have anything to do with
the effect that's saying "using the alternate cost of without-paying-its-
mana-cost".
It's true that all four artifacts with Imprint which let you copy Imprinted
cards and play them say to do so without paying their mana cost. But that's
not some limitation imposed by Imprint; rather, that's a limitation imposed
because all four use the wording 'without paying its mana cost'.
>that the only part of the spell I can use is where it says to
>(basically/simplifying terms) redirect X damage since the time for
>paying costs has passed.
No no. You play the copy-spell normally. Except that you have to use the
alternate cost of "without paying its mana cost". You still go through all
the steps of announcement - choosing modes if needed, choosing targets if
needed, saying how targets are affected if needed, figuring out the actual
cost to pay, then paying the cost if there ends up being one. It's not
a case of "by the time you're told to play the copy, it's +too late+ to pay
any of its costs"; it's a case of "the game rules say that if you're playing
it without paying its mana cost, you can't choose a DIFFERENT alternate
method of paying".
>The ability on the card simply says though
>that I "can" remove a card in my hand from the game. If it had said
>"you can remove a card in your hand from the game and use it's
>converted mana cost for X", it would have been fine I think. But it
>says "intead of" paying ~ casting cost. (lemme reproduce it here).
No, it says "rather than". It specifically doesn't say "instead"; that's
reserved for replacement effects.
>You may remove a white card with converted mana cost X in your hand
>from the game rather than pay Shining Shoal's mana cost.
Right. You _may_ do so; this is an optional alternate cost, not a mandatory
one. (If it were mandatory, then you could not play a copy of this from
the Scepter at all, since you would HAVE TO use the alternate cost, but
would not be allowed to.)
>The next X damage that a source of your choice would deal to you or a
>creature you control this turn is dealt to target creature or player
>instead.
Right. This is the effect, and has little to do with announcing the spell,
other than a) that's when the size of X gets defined (and it must be 0 if
this is a copy played off a Scepter) and b) that's when you pick the target.
>Ok, close enough. "rather than" (is synonymous with "instead").
No; it's specifically used rather than "instead", which would signify a
replacement effect of some sort. "Instead" is a Magic Word, so to speak.
>"paying ~ mana cost". ok...so it seems like an alternate cost for an event
>that won't happen because it is already being waived. It's a little
>misleading in saying "X" as it all I have to do is basically "while
>playing" determine X somehow. But it does assign to X the value of
>something. Back to redundancy. Is it redundant or how exactly does it
>qualify as "alternative".
It's an alternative cost because it says one of 'rather than paying its
mana cost' or 'without paying its mana cost'. Either of those signifies an
alternative cost. If neither of those appear, whatever you're looking at
isn't an alternative method of paying a mana cost.
>Perhaps only by comparison with cards like
>Force of Will etc. Not exactly the same:
>
>You may pay 1 life and remove a blue card in your hand from the game
>instead of paying Force of Will's casting cost.
You're looking at the actual -card-. Look at Oracle text please:
Force of Will 3UU Instant
You may pay 1 life and remove a blue card in your hand from the game rather
than pay ~'s mana cost. / Counter target spell.
The "rather than" signifies that this is in fact an alternative cost; the "you
may" means it's optional - you can choose not to use it, and just pay the 3UU
in the normal way.
>Sometimes I wonder how that "trigger"/"event"/"effect"/"cost" all time
>out. ie:
Those are four fairly different things.
A triggered ability uses "When", "Whenever", or "At the" to set off its
trigger event.
An "event" is something that happens in the game; specifically, it's something
a triggered ability is watching for so as to trigger, or something a
replacement or prevention effect is watching for so as to replace or prevent
it.
An "effect" is the result of resolving a spell or ability, applying a static
ability, or applying a rule.
A "cost" can be either a mana cost (for spells), an activation cost (for
activated abilities), or anything following the word "pay".
>-cost/trigger: (all cost sources like sacrifice etc are gone to
>graveyards and cannot be targetted subsequently by new effects)
>
>-place on stack. (an effect "object")
>
>-the effect can "trigger" such that new events occur but only if the
>effect can resolve by having legal targets. (ie: not fizzle...but
>fizzle is supposedly misleading....not sure how).
....These three grafs aren't parsing for me. I am not sure where you're
going wrong here, or misinterpreting things, because I'm not at all sure
what you're trying to -say- with any of these here - you're using some terms
that have meanings in Magic and some that don't, but are arranging them in
ways that Magic doesn't use them.
>By the way, I've read the rules albeit somewhat quickly...but I find
>the detail is sometimes too wordy or ambiguous in places explaining
>some of the concepts.
Rereading the rulebook after playing a few games is recommended. Oddly enough
it usually turns out that parts of the rulebook you didn't understand or
you skipped over before will suddenly make sense, and even odder this will
usually keep happening each time you reread it after some time away from it.
>Anyhow, I wonder if there are some sample arguements or cards that have
>been extremely big causes of debate and what can be learned from them.
Oh yes.
>Is there any such links to such material out there?
Well, there's a FAQ that's posted regularly here in three parts; you may
want to look at that. There's the entire archives of the newsgroup, accessible
through Google, but that's a bit much to wade through... And there's the
Oracle, available through gatherer.wizards.com , containing the current
texts for all cards.
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram